Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

OT, but after watching every episode of BigLove, I'm left wondering why polygamy isn't legal.

Polygamy should be legal in a free country.

at least Bennett is decent and good-humored about it. NIce to see a conservative being patient and pleasant during a debate like this.

"Divorce is not caused because 50% of marraiges end in gayness."

Bennett was very composed, even during the cheering, but his arguments don't really hold up.

Polygamy should be legal in a free country.

I agree, and it should work both ways. A woman should be allowed to have multiple husbands as well.

Dag, polygamy isn't legal because we don't want you to get all the women. You have to leave some for the rest of us!

Cheers to Bennett.. he lost the argument but he wasn't a douche at all.

There should be no tax or legal differences between married and unmarried people. Parties to a marriage should just sign a contract, regardless of their sexes or the quantity of people involved. The government should have no jurisdiction to define what marriage is.

Marriage should be nothing but a social nametag. Any benefits should come from dependants, based off of your income/age/health; coupled with a strong and invasive social care (protection agencies as well as social workers). Parts of this exist now and could be modified easily. It also needs to be balanced by another social service to make sure the singles don't get left behind; taking the brunt of the taxes.

In the abstract, nothing is wrong with polygamy. If multiple consenting adults want to get married, go for it. In practice, horny old men use religion and a closed society to coerce underage girls into marrying them. In the communities that practice polygamy, there is no gender equality.

So, yes, this argument is not related to the question of gay marriage.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

nah, twiddles - I have no poly-aspirations, one partner is plenty - ( with my partner )

However, I'm all for polyandry or polygamy as a legal marital status. If you've ever read Heinlen's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" he outlayed how "group marriages" of 5-10 people could work, it actually came across as being pretty workable.

Wow, very liberal views here, fellas. I like it!

The gay marriage debate is a huge waste of time - it draws attention away from issues that are actually important. But, like everything else, it comes down to money - the only benefit homosexuals could gain by officially calling the relationship a "marriage" is for tax/insurance purposes. They could be just as happy, (or some comedians would argue, unhappy) living together without a marriage license. But suppose for a second gay marriage is allowed - this would make it possible for two college roommates to claim they are homosexual and get "married" in order to get a better position in terms of taxes/insurance - and who's going to call them out on it? Then we have the IRS and insurance companies clogging up the court systems trying to bust people for tax evasion - and how would the roommates defend their position? Prove they're gay in a court of law? Give me a fucking break. It's about money - just like everything else in this country - which is why it won't happen, because the government and insurance companies won't allow it to happen. So stop wasting politicians' time; allow them to debate more important issues such as war or clean energy - because bottom line, gay people - your greed is stealing the spotlight from Darfur.

@J-Rova
Just because something is about money to you doesn't mean that it is about money to everyone else. Other people have this thing called a heart and some other thing called a soul to inspire them to care about things beyond the material. They're actually pretty handy.

@people supporting polygamy
Have to disagree. The whole concept of marriage is a caring committed relationship between two people. To extend it beyond, you may as well just eliminate the institution of marriage completely. I support gay marriage for the reason that I believe it still adheres to the basic principles of marriage, but polygamy? That's against everything that marriage stands for in the first place.

All valid positions above, though, "mincemeat" describing the Devil's advocate on any subject USA? Stewart askes "why not" to questions he already knows the answer to, as always, and uses his pulpit like a advertiser uses the right amount of blacks, Asians, and whites to sell soap flakes. He knows the man's position, he knows what marriage means to those who use the origin in western culture of that framework-Why fair readers, do you imagine, that gay couples are not recognized as candidates for marriage in the U.S., and have never been? Is it pressure form conservative Christians??? No. Is it the kind of bigotry and "ism" that the blacks suffered during their long quest for civil rights in America? No. Is it, perhaps, an unspoken, unconscious, reaction by the majority of human beings everywhere on earth, to that which will serve to do nothing for the overall benefit of mankind, rather, that will satisfy the frustrated, socially underground, who have in the last 50 years, gained ground as a political special interest, as the country as a whole, has systematically been going down the tubes for the past 100 years??

How do groups of 20-50 in a tribal situation, deal with the homosexuals that pop up from time to time in their social structures......they abide them, they call attention to them in ways that set them apart, but they do not pattern their societal foundations, on encouraging the proliferation of unions.......Fuck Gay Marriage.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

BrknPhoenix says: The whole concept of marriage is a caring committed relationship between two people.

Some in the arab world, Utah and dead people in milleniums of history would disagreee.

status quo in your country for the last 100 years != humanity's natural law.

and if anyone knows anything thus far about a down vote from me, I down vote the Jon Stewart cult of personality most times, the Stewie Griffin cult as well......

Choggie, you offer several scenarios that, to you, don't equate to reasons why gay marriage is not recognized in the united states (although you didn't back up why you discounted any of these scenarios). People fear difference. If an idea challenges the values driven by, and only by, whats deemed adequate or normal in reference to social standards, of course that is going to be grounds for bigotry and lack of tolerance. Not because there is some ultimate right or wrong that we all unconciously agree on. Let homosexuality remain a range on the spectrum of sexual fetishes. Although its called a preference, being homosexual is no less chosen than the fact that I like manicured feet and latina women...so why continue criticism on such a natural response as sexual stimuli based soley on how much it varies from your own?

my daughter called it correctly when she was 7 or 8....if you don't like gay marriage don't do it...and if it doesn't apply to you, your opinion doesn't count.

Yeah, because your daughter is well-versed in the political and moral realms.

Choggie, as usual your comments are spot-on.

Choggie, what do you think would happen if that "group.. of 20-50 in a tribal situation" were predominantly homosexual? If you follow the logic you laid out then the decision on gay marriage should be left up to local custom and not dictated by the federal government. It is my belief the feds should recognize whatever the local law happens to be.

When I had to study civil rights as a kid, I always wondered if the people who made arguments for racial segregation ACTUALLY believed what they were arguing or not. Personally, I think that there are a few different groups of people;

- Some of them truly believed in what they were saying, either because of their environment and upbringing or whatever, but they ended up brainwashed and didnt know any better.

- Some others probably just wanted to fit in. Basically like the group above, but occasionally had moments where they knew better, but decided to just, "go with the flow" anyway.

- While the last group didnt really believe they were right, they just felt so scared at the thought of being uncomfortable that they had to put up a fight and do whatever they could to protect their comfortability.

I have a few questions in regards to those that oppose gay marriage is;

Why? - What are the negative consequences of allowing gay marriages. (Please no slippery slope arguments. "Man marries Snake" etc. It's a silly argument and if you really believe that its even on the same slope, then i dont want to hear from you anyway.)

-Do you fall in to any of the above groups? Please try to be honest, I am curious if anyone out there can make logical sense in their mind about why they oppose gay marriage and then explain it to me. I would honestly love to hear just one point that made me think, "Oh okay, well, yeah thats a concern"
Like if you busted in to a random gay marriage right when they said, "If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace. " What would you say?

For the record, i just dont really care about gay marriage. My stance is, "why not?"

Although I do not no anyone whos gay or have any gay friends, i just dont see a reason why they cant be married.

@ skforty -

Homosexuality is simply not natural. Just look at it like this:
Regardless of creation or evolution, humans are made to procreate as a couple. A male/male or female/female couple can not procreate naturally. If you could call it natural, then surely the human form would have been created/evolved to be able to produce children from same sex couples.

Can you look at that and say "Oh okay, well, yeah thats a concern" ?

From a scientific standpoint, homosexuality would not be considered unnatural. Homosexual and bisexual behavior have been recorded in a number of species. It also fits with natural genetic mutation rates and environmental pressure changes. Enviromental pressures, for those that don't know, can cause physiological changes that are as immutable as genetic expressions.

If gay marriage is openly allowed (specifically in the US since a number of other countries have gay marriage), it won't mean people will become gay. It will simply allow gay people to have contractual relationships just like heterosexuals. It has no impact on family or family structure. It has no impact on the meaning of marriage.

The pro-con arguments are all wrong, the only coherent and constitutional position is to ban marriage.

State sanctioned marriage is an explicit establishment of religion, expressly forbidden to the federal government by the first amendment. Married people can not legally gain rights by it, and marriage can have no legal impact on taxation or eligibility for social programs, any congress person who votes the other way has breached their legally binding oath to uphold the constitution, and is therefor a criminal.

Marriage as a religious practice can not legally have any effect on federal law, and the structure of that practice can not be mandated by federal law. That is the law of the land.

the only benefit homosexuals could gain by officially calling the relationship a "marriage" is for tax/insurance purposes. They could be just as happy, (or some comedians would argue, unhappy) living together without a marriage license. But suppose for a second gay marriage is allowed - this would make it possible for two college roommates to claim they are homosexual and get "married" in order to get a better position in terms of taxes/insurance

1. Taxes and insurance are not the only benefits provided by marriage. In an emergency room, people who are not considered immediate family by the hospital are barred from seeing patients. Information concerning the patient is also withheld from anyone who is not immediate family. The insurance issue is also a big thing, and its not about greed, health care is terribly expensive. Why should the child of a gay man or woman not be allowed to be protected by his/her partner's insurance?
2. I have a male roomate, and I am female. Should we get married for tax reasons? Men and women living together who are not romantically involved is an increasing phenomenon, but do we really think any of these people get married for tax reasons??

So, if we really think a need for same-sex marriage is borne out of greed why not ban marriage all together? Quick, before my roomie and i deside we need a tax break.

Not every organism in a community of organisms is meant to procreate. Look at bees, for example. The fact that a homosexual couple can't procreate is irrelevant. We don't force singles to get married and procreate either.

I fall into the "why not?" category as well. I am not gay, and I have no close friends who are gay. But there is absolutely no logical reason for any two people to be forbidden to marry. And it's frustrating as hell to see people like choggie and MG turn out the same old tired untenable arguments. No matter how many people rip them to shreds, they just keep saying the same thing.

1. It's against the word of God.
- Fine, but your God has no place in my government.

2. It's unnatural.
- Wrong. It's been in humans since the dawn of history, and it's been displayed in many different animal species.

3. Marriage is for procreation.
- Then why are sterile couples allowed to get married and adopt kids? Why are couples who have kids allowed to stay unmarried? Answer: it's not just for procreation.

4. Civil unions are just as good.
- Then why not just let them use the word marriage for the civil unions?

5. Because the word marriage is sacred.
- Again, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

6. "Is it, perhaps, an unspoken, unconscious, reaction by the majority of human beings everywhere on earth"
- That's called bigotry. Many of us are trying to grow beyond the ignorance of the past. You may revel in ignorance and bigotry, but I'll be damned if I let you take me down with you.

In the last couple hundred years, marriage has changed into something new. It is no longer about property rights and blood lineage and all that. It's about an emotional bond and two people who want to formally pledge to maintain that bond for the rest of their lives. When you say that gays shouldn't get married, you are telling them that heterosexual emotions are fundamentally different from homosexual emotions, and that is simply absurd.

Either come up with a good argument or grow up and let it go.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Homosexuality is simply not natural. Just look at it like this:
Regardless of creation or evolution, humans are made to procreate as a couple. A male/male or female/female couple can not procreate naturally. If you could call it natural, then surely the human form would have been created/evolved to be able to produce children from same sex couples.
Can you look at that and say "Oh okay, well, yeah thats a concern" ?


and so lets say homosexuality is natures population control? natural causes just aren't killing people in the western world like they used to. something has to keep the population under control. so no, i am not concerned that people participating in a sex act that does not lead to procreation will cause any shortage of human beings on this planet.

"1. Taxes and insurance are not the only benefits provided by marriage. In an emergency room, people who are not considered immediate family by the hospital are barred from seeing patients. Information concerning the patient is also withheld from anyone who is not immediate family." this is simply untrue.

i am in an emergency room right now and noone here has any problem with anyones friend or gay lover or neighbor coming to see the patient. as long as the patient WANTS that person in the room. and if the patient were in critical condition and we needed the room cleared out to work on the patient we would kick god himself out of that room while the patient was being stabilized. after that though its free reign. the only limitation is 2 people at a time and the patient must say its okay for you to be there. also, we dont give information to ANYONE, immediate family or otherwise unless the patient expressly writes the name of the person on a special form and signs it. (unless of course the patient is a minor) its called HIPPA.

in the case that the patient is in a state where such consents cannot be expressed, we will take any information we can get about the patient but will not release information (that isnt obvious, like obviously your boyfriend is in a coma) or allow anyone without a legal right to make decisions about the persons healthcare. (this is why advance directives are important!!!!!)

*gay *1sttube

Adding video to channels (1sttube, Gay) - requested by burdturgler.

*blocked

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by Zifnab.

good discussion.

*equality

Adding video to channels (Equality) - requested by geo321.